The Election Campaign and the Election Platform

Published:Sotsial-Demokrat, No. 24, October 18 (31), 1911.

      Published according to theSotsial-Demokrattext.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,[1974],

      Moscow,Volume 17,

      pages278-286.Translated:Dora CoxTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2004).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Theelections to the Fourth Duma are due to be held next
year. The Social-Democratic Party must launch its election campaign atonce. In view of these forthcoming elections a “livening-up” of
all parties is already noticeable. The first phase of the period of
counter-revolution has obviously come to an end. Last year’s
demonstrations, the student movement, the famine in the countryside, and,
last but not least, the strike wave, are all unmistakable symptoms showing
that a turn has set in, that we are at the beginning of a new phase of the
counter-revolution. Intensified propaganda, agitation, and organisation are
on the order of the day, and the forthcoming elections provide a natural,
inevitable, topical “pretext” for such work.

[It should be noted in parentheses that those who, like the smallVperyodgroup among the Social-Democrats, are still hesitant with
regard to these elementary truths which have been fully corroborated by
reality, by experience, and by the Party, those who maintain that
“otzovism” is a “legitimate shade of opinion” (Vperyod, No. 3,May 1911, p. 78), thereby forfeit every claim to be regarded in
any way as a serious tendency or trend in the Social-Democratic movement.]

Tobegin with—a few remarks about the organisation and conduct of the
election campaign. In order to launch it atonce, it is necessary
for the illegalnucleiof the R.S.D.L.P. to start work immediately
on their owninitiativethroughout the country, in all and sundry
legal and semi-legal organisations, in all the big factories, among all
sections and groups of the population. We must look sad reality straight in
the face. In most places there are no strictlydefined Party organisations at all. There is the working-class vanguard,
which is devoted to Social-Democracy. There are isolated individuals, and
there are small groups. Therefore the first task of all Social-Democrats is
to take the initiative in organising nuclei (a word excellently expressing
the idea that the objective conditions call for the formation of small,
very flexible groups, circles, and organisations); it is the task ofallSocial-Democrats, even where there are only two or three of
them, to gain some “foothold”, establish connections of one kind or
another, and start work that is systematic even if very modest.

Inview of the present situation in our Party, there is nothing more
dangerous than the tactics of “waiting” for the time when an influential
centre will, have been formed in Russia. All Social-Democrats know that the
work of forming such a centreis going on, thateverything
possibletoward this end has been done by those who are primarily
responsible for this work; but all Social-Democrats must also be aware of
the incredible difficulties created by the police—they must not lose
heart at the first, second or third failure!—and all should know that
when such a centre has been formed, it will take it a long time to
establish reliable connections with all the local organisations, and the
centre will have to confine itself togeneralpolitical guidance
for some considerable time. There must be no delay in the organisation of
localnucleiof the R.S.D.L.P., nuclei that will act on their own
initiative in a strictly Party spirit, function illegally, start at once on
the preparatory work for the elections, and immediately take every possible
step to develop propaganda and agitation (illegal printing-presses,
leaflets, legally published organs, groups of “legally functioning”
Social-Democrats, transport facilities,etc., etc.)—any delay
would jeopardise the whole work.

Theprincipal question for Social-Democrats who value the elections
primarily as a means for the political enlightenment of the people, is, of
course, the ideological and political content of all the propaganda and
agitation to be carried on in Connection with them. That is what is meant
by an election platform. To every party at all worthy of the name a
platform is something that has existed long before the elections; it is not
something specially devised “for theelections”, but an inevitable result of the wholeworkof the
party, of the way the work is organised, and of its whole trend in the
given historical period. And the R.S.D.L.P., too, already has a platform;
its platform already exists and has been naturally and inevitably
determined by the Party’s principles and by the tactics which the Party hasalreadyadopted, hasalreadyapplied, and is still
applying, during the entire period in the political life of the nation
which in a certain respect is always “summed up” by elections. The
platform of the R.S.D.L.P. is thesum totalof the work which
revolutionary Marxism and the sections of the advanced workers who remained
faithful to it have accomplished in the 1908–11 period, the period of the
orgy of counter revolution, the period of the June Third, Stolypin regime.

Thethree main items that make up this total are: (1) the programme of
the Party; (2) its tactics; (3) its appraisal of the dominant-ideological
and political trends of the given period, or the most widespread of them,
or those which are most harmful for democracy and socialism. Without a
programme a party cannot be an integral political organism capable of
pursuing its line whatever turn events may take. Without a tactical line
based on an appraisal of the current political situation and providing
explicit answers to the “vexed problems” of our times, we might have a
circle of theoreticians, but not a functioning political entity. Without an
appraisal of the “active”, current or “fashionable” ideological and
political trends, the programme and tactics may degenerate into dead
“clauses” which can by no stretch of the imagination be put into effect
or applied to the thousands of detailed, particular, and highly specific
questions of practical activity with the necessary understanding of
essentials, with an understanding of “what is what”.

Asfor the ideological and political trends typical of the 4908-11
period and of particular importance for a proper understanding of the tasks
of Social-Democracy, the most prominent among them are theVekhitrend, which is the ideology of thecounter-revolutionary liberalbourgeoisie (an ideology fully in line with the policy of the
Constitutional-Democratic Party, no matter what its diplomats say), andliquidationism, which is the expression of the same decadent and
bourgeois influences in a group which has contact withthe working-class movement. Away from democracy, as far away as possible
from the movement of the masses, as far away as possible from the
revolution, that is the theme of the trends of political thought that hold
sway in “society”. As far away as possible from the illegal Party, from
the tasks of the hegemony of the proletariat in the struggle for
liberation, from the tasks of championing the revolution, that is the theme
of theVekhitrend among the Marxists, the trend that has built a
nest for itself inNasha ZaryaandDyelo Zhizni. No
matter what is said by narrow-minded practical workers or by people who
wearily turn away from the difficult struggle for revolutionary Marxism in
our difficult epoch, there isnot a singlequestion of “practical
activity”,not a singlequestion of the illegal or legal work of
the Social-Democratic Party in any sphere of its activity, to which the
propagandist or agitator could give a clear and complete answer, unless he
understood the full profundity and significance of these “trends of
thought” typical of the Stolypin period.

Veryoften it may be useful, and sometimes even essential, to give the
election platform of Social-Democracy a finishing touch by adding a brief
general slogan, a watch word for the elections, stating the most cardinal
issues of current political practice, and providing a most Convenient and
most immediate pretext, as well as subject matter, for comprehensive
socialist propaganda. In our epoch only the following three points can make
up this watchword, this general slogan: (1) a republic; (2) confiscation of
all landed estates, and (3) the eight-hour day.

Thefirst point is the quintessence of the demand for political
liberty. In expressing our Party’s stand on questions of this nature, it
would be wrong to confine ourselves to the term political liberty or some
other term such as “democratisation”, etc., wrong because our propaganda
and agitation must consider the experience of the revolution. The
dissolution of two Dumas, the organisation of pogroms, support for the
Black-Hundred gangs and clemency for the heroes of the Black Hundreds,
Lyakhov’s exploits in

Persia,[1]the coup d’état of June 3, and a number of further
“minor coups d’état” which followed it (Article 87, etc.)—is a
far from complete record of the deeds of our monarchyas represented by Romanov, Purishkevich, Stolypin and Co. Situations do
arise and have arisen in history, when it has been possible for a monarchy
to adapt itself to serious democratic reforms, such, for instance, as
universal suffrage. Monarchy in general is not uniform and immutable. It is
a very flexible institution, capable of adapting itself to the various
types of class rule. But it would be playing fast and loose with the
requirements of historical criticism and treachery to the cause of
democracy if one were to proceed from these indisputable abstract
considerations and draw conclusions from them with regard to the actual
Russian monarchy of the twentieth century.

Thesituation in our country and the history of our state power,
particularly during the past decade, clearly show us that none other than
the tsarist monarchy is the centre of the gang of Black-Hundred landowners
(with Romanov at their head) who have made Russia a bogey not only for
Europe, but now even for Asia—the gang which has developed tyranny,
robbery, venality of officials, systematic acts of violence against the
“common herd”, the persecution and torture of political opponents, etc.,
to the inordinate dimensions we know today. Since this is therealface, the real economic basis and political physiognomy ofourmonarchy, to make the demand for, say, universal suffrage the central issue
in the struggle for political liberty would not be so much opportunism as
sheer nonsense. Since it is a question of choosing a central issue to be
made the general slogan of the elections, the various democratic demands
must be arranged in some sort of likely perspective and proportion. After
all, one might only raise laughter among educated persons and create
confusion in the minds of the uneducated if one were to demand of
Purishkevich that he behave decently toward women and that he should
realise the impropriety of using “unprintable” language, or if one were
to demand tolerance of

Illiodor,[2]altruism and honesty of Gurko and Reinbot, respect for
law and order of Tolmachov and Dumbadze, and democratic reforms of Nicholas
Romanov!

Considerthe question from, so to speak, the general historical
standpoint. It is obvious (to all, except Larin and a handful of
liquidators) that the bourgeois revolution in Russia has not been
consummated. Russia is heading forarevolutionarycrisis. We must prove that revolution is necessary
and preach that it is legitimate and “beneficial”. This being the case,
we must conduct our propaganda for political liberty so as to pose the
question in all its aspects, formulate the goal for a movement that is bent
on victory and not one that stops half-way (as was the case in 1905); we
must issue a slogan capable of arousing enthusiasm among the masses who can
no longer endure life as it is in Russia, who suffer because they are
ashamed of being Russians, and are striving for a really free and really
renewed Russia. Consider the question from the standpoint of practical
propaganda. You cannot help making clear even to the most benighted muzhik
that the state must be governed by a Duma which is more freely elected than
the First Duma, by a Duma elected by the whole people. But how are we to
ensure that the Duma cannot be dispersed? Only the destruction of the
tsarist monarchy can guarantee this.

Itmay be objected that to issue the slogan of a republic as the
watchword of the entire election campaign would mean precluding the
possibility of conducting it legally, and thereby show that recognition of
the importance and necessity of legal work is not seriously intended. Such
objections, however, would be sophisms, worthy of the liquidators. We
cannot legally advocate a republic (except from therestrumof the Duma, from which republican propaganda
can and should be carried onfullywithin the bounds of legality);
but we can write and speak in defence of democracyin such a waythat we do not in the least condone ideas about the compatibility of
democracy with the monarchy;in such a wayas to refute and
ridicule the liberal and Narodnik monarchists;in such a wayas to
make sure that the readers and the audiences form a clear idea of the
connection between the monarchy, precisely as a monarchy, and the despotism
and arbitrary rule reigning in Russia. Russians have gone through a long
school of slavery—they have learnt to read between the lines and add what
the speaker has left unsaid. “Do not say ‘I can’t’—say ‘I
shan’t’”—that is the reply we must give Social-Democrats who
are working legally, should they plead that it is “impossible” to make
the demand for a republic a central point in our propaganda and agitation.

Itis hardly necessary to dwell at particular length on the importance
of the demand for the confiscation of all landed estates. At a time when
the Russian villages never cease groaning under the burden of the Stolypin
“reform”, when an extremely fierce struggle is going on between the mass
of the population on the one hand and the “new land owners” and the rural
police on the other, and when, according to the testimony of extremely
conservative people hostile to the revolution, bitterness such as has never
before been seen is making itself felt ever more strongly—at such a time
the demand must be made acentralplank of the whole democratic
election platform. We shall only point out that this is the very demand
that will draw a clear line of demarcation between consistent proletarian
democracy and not only the landlord liberalism of the Cadets, but also the
intellectual-bureaucratic talk about “standards “consumption standards”,
“production standards”, “equalitarian distribution”, and similar
nonsense, of which the Narodniks are so fond, and at which every sensible
peasant laughs. For us it is not a question of “how much land does the
muzhik need”; the Russian people need to confiscate theentireland of the landowners, so as to throw off the yoke of feudal oppression in
theentireeconomic and political life of the country. Unless this
measure is carried out, Russia will never be free, and the Russian peasant
will never eat anything like his fill, nor will he ever be truly literate.

Thethird point—the eight-hour day—stands even less in need of
comment. The counter-revolutionary forces are frantically robbing the
workers of the gains of 1905; and all the more intense, therefore, is the
struggle of the workers for better working and living conditions, chief
among which is the introduction of the eight-hour day.

Tosum up, the substance and mainspring of the Social-Democratic
election platform can be expressed in three words:for the
revolution! Shortly before his death Lev Tolstoi said—in a tone of
regret typical of the worst aspects of “Tolstoi-ism”—that the Russian
people had “learned how to make a revolution” all too quickly. We regret
only the fact that the Russian people have not learned this sciencethoroughly enough, for without it they may remain the slaves of
the Purishkeviches for many centuries to come. It istrue, however, that the Russian proletariat, in its striving to achieve the
complete transformation of society on socialist lines, has given the
Russian people in general, and the Russian peasants in particular,
indispensable,lessonsin this science. Neither the gallows
erected by Stolypin, nor the efforts ofVekhi, can make them
forget these lessons. The lesson has been given, it is being assimilated,
it will be repeated.

Thebasis of our election platform is the programme of the R.S.D.L.P.,
our old programme of revolutionary Social-Democracy. Our programme gives a
precise formulation of our socialist aims, of the ultimate goal of
socialism; and it is a formulation, moreover, which is particularly
emphatic in its opposition to opportunism and reformism. At a time when in
many countries, including our own, reformism is raising its head and when,
on the other hand, there is a growing number of indications that in the
most advanced countries the period of so-called “peaceful
parliamentarianism” is drawing to a close and a period of revolutionary
unrest among the masses is setting in—at such a time our old programme
assumes even greater significance (if that is possible). With regard to
Russia the programme of the R.S.D.L.P. sets the Party the immediate aim of
“over throwing the autocratic tsar and establishing a democratic
republic”. The special sections of our programme dealing with the
questions of government, finances, and labour legislation, and with the
agrarian question, provide exact and definite material to guide theentirework of every propagandist and agitator, in all its many
aspects; they should enable him to particularise on our election platform
in speaking before any audience, on any occasion, and on any subject.

Thetactics of the R.S.D.L.P. during the period of 1908–11 have been
determined bythe resolutions adopted in December 1908.Endorsed
by the Plenary Meeting held in January 1910, and tested bythe
experienceof the whole “Stolypin period”, these resolutions provide
an exact appraisal of the situation and of the tasks dictated by that
situation. Just as before, the old autocracy is still the main enemy; just
as before, a revolutionary crisis is inevitable, and Russia is again
heading for such a crisis. But the situation is not the same as before;
autocracy has taken “a step in the transformation into a bourgeois
monarchy”; it is trying to strengthenfeudal landed proprietorship by a new, bourgeois agrarian policy; it is
trying to arrange alliances between the feudal-minded landowners and the
bourgeoisie in the reactionary and servile Duma; it is making use of
widespread counter revolutionary (Vekhi) sentiments among the
liberal bourgeoisie. Capitalism has advanced a few steps, class
contradictions have sharpened, the split between the democratic elements
and theVekhitype liberalism of the Cadets has become more
pronounced, and the activity of the Social-Democrats has extended to new
spheres (the Duma and “legal opportunities”), which enables them to
broaden the scope of their propaganda and agitation despite the
counter-revolution and even though the illegal organisations have been
badly “battered”. The old revolutionary tasks and the old, tested methods
of revolutionary mass struggle, that is what our Party champions in this
period of disorganisation and disintegration, when it is often necessary
“to start from the beginning”, when, in view of the changed
circumstances, it is necessary to resort not only to old methods, but also
to conduct the work of preparation and gather forces for the impending
period of new battles in a new way, and by new methods.

[1]Lyakhov,V. P.—colonel in the tsarist army, was in command
of the Russian troops that suppressed the revolutionary movement in Persia
in 1908.

[2]MonkIlliodor(S. M. Trufanov, born 1889)—one of the leaders
of the Black Hundreds.